You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

June 18, 2026

Thailand Advances Draft on Funding-Source Oversight for Capital Markets Operators

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has released a detailed draft notification expanding its oversight to cover the funding sources behind major shareholdings in licensed securities and digital asset business operators. Published on June 8, 2026, as Public Hearing Document No. 30/2569, the draft builds on funding-source principles introduced in an April hearing and on recently amended Ministry of Finance notifications issued in February 2026 that broadened the definition of major shareholder of licensed securities and digital asset business operators. A public comment period on the draft closes on June 23, 2026.

An earlier version of the SEC’s proposal brought the issue of funding behind significant shareholdings within the SEC’s regulatory perimeter, signaling intent to look beyond shareholding to the persons and capital ultimately financing major shareholdings in licensed securities and digital asset business operators. The concern is that control may be exercised through financing arrangements rather than through equity ownership alone. The draft notification advances that initiative into a more detailed regulatory framework, as summarized below.

Expanded Definition Captures Funding Sources Throughout Ownership Chains

The draft regulation introduces a “material funding source” concept. A material funding source is the principal capital that enables a major shareholder to acquire its shareholding, without which the shareholding could not be obtained. Under the proposed rules, any person who provides such funding, whether directly to the major shareholder or indirectly through any tier of the ownership chain above the operator, is deemed a controller subject to SEC approval.

The draft also captures any person acting as a conduit or intermediary in facilitating financial assistance to a major shareholder, deeming each of these persons to be a material funding source and aggregating it into the same control group as the ultimate funding source.

The definition covers not only cash loans and equity investments, but also financial assistance provided through other assets, including digital assets, guarantees, structured instruments, and any contracts that result in the assistance provider achieving a status equivalent to a material funding source. Four narrow exceptions are carved out for institutional lending that will not trigger material funding source treatment:

  • Loans from Thai financial institutions or banks in Basel Committee on Banking Supervision member countries operating under banking supervision laws
  • Margin lending by licensed securities firms
  • Repurchase agreements executed by licensed securities firms
  • Investments in publicly offered debt securities issued by major shareholder companies

Aggregation Rules to Include Parties Sharing Common Funding

The draft introduces an aggregation mechanism that treats receivers of material funding from the same source as acting in concert for shareholding calculation purposes. When multiple individuals or entities obtain capital from a common funding source to acquire shares in an operator, their holdings must be combined to determine whether they collectively exceed the 10% major-shareholder threshold. This aggregation operates similarly to the existing spouse and minor child attribution rules but extends to any parties linked through common financing arrangements.

The draft also clarifies that when the material funding source is a legal entity, only that specific entity requires major shareholder review and approval—its shareholders are not also required to undergo this review and approval process. This clarification was mentioned in the hearing but is not explicitly stated in the draft regulation.

Practical Implications

Operators should begin compliance preparations now, given that a detailed draft is available and the targeted implementation deadline under the Ministerial Regulation is August 20, 2026. Key steps include the following:

  • Audit shareholder registers and trace the financing behind every share acquisition at each tier of the ownership structure, not only direct equity percentages.
  • Identify any shareholders individually below the 10% voting rights threshold who may be aggregated over it due to a common funder. The analysis must trace funding relationships, not just equity percentages.
  • Gather source-of-funds documentation and exemption evidence ahead of the deadline.
  • Ensure that any additional major shareholders obtain SEC approval within the prescribed period.

Next Steps

Comments may be submitted to the SEC until June 23, 2026, through the Securities Business Policy Department (for securities firms) or the Digital Asset Business Policy Department (for digital asset operators), or via the website law.go.th. The final notification is expected to be issued in time for the targeted compliance deadline of August 20, 2026.

Related Professionals

Practices

Capital Markets

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

February 19, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has issued a new regulation on material transactions (MTs) to govern asset acquisitions and disposals by listed companies and their subsidiaries. The new notification on MT criteria (No. TorJor. 45/2568) from the Capital Market Supervisory Board replaces the long-standing notification (No. TorJor. 20/2551) that has governed such matters. The SEC has also introduced parallel amendments to the country’s related-party transaction rules. The new regulation will take effect on July 1, 2026. Any MT matters approved by a company’s board of directors for shareholders’ approval before that date remain subject to Notification No. TorJor. 20/2551. Following that date, the new MT rules will introduce several significant changes that market participants should carefully consider. Expanded Scope of Material Transactions One of the key changes under the new regulation is the expansion of the definition of MTs, which now expressly covers financial assistance and certain lease and business lease arrangements that are not in the ordinary course of business of the listed company or its subsidiaries. For financial assistance, this includes lending, granting credit, providing guarantees, or entering into any arrangement that increases the company’s financial obligations, particularly where the recipient is facing liquidity issues or unable to repay debts. Other forms of financial support also fall within scope. However, whether the provision of collateral for others qualifies as an MT remains somewhat unclear, since no disposal of assets occurs for the provider of collateral. This issue remains to be carefully considered. For lease-related transactions, the MT rules now specifically include the lease or hire-purchase of all or part of a business or assets operated by or belonging to a listed company or its subsidiaries. New Exemptions The new regulation introduces clearer exemptions for transactions between a listed company and its subsidiaries or among subsidiaries, which
Read More
January 16, 2026
As the Thai stock market faces a downturn, Thai investors have shown increased interest in depositary receipts (DRs), which offer the same tax benefits as Thai stocks while providing access to foreign securities. However, recent speculation in the media has raised concerns among regulators and the market, raising questions about whether DR issuers actually hold the underlying foreign securities purported to be backing the DRs. This has brought the structural integrity of DR programs under scrutiny. Why This Question Matters In global practice, DRs are understood to be backed by the foreign securities they reference, giving investors economic exposure that closely mirrors direct ownership. When the issuer does not hold the underlying securities directly, the risk profile shifts to the strength of its custodial, hedging, and liquidity arrangements. Those arrangements determine whether DR holders receive equivalent economic and voting rights, how corporate actions are transmitted, and whether conversions or redemptions can be completed in full and on time. In Thailand, the standardized DR disclosure templates and the express allowance for global custodians indicate a regulatory focus on transparency and structural safeguards that preserve these outcomes, even if the issuer’s name does not appear on the foreign share register. Thai Rules for DR Offerings Thai DR offerings are governed by specific Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) notifications and standardized prospectus forms. These instruments establish the disclosure regime for DR structures, risk factors, and the issuer’s arrangements to support the DR program. The framework expressly contemplates the use of a global custodian, indicating that DR issuers are not required to hold the underlying foreign securities directly in their own name if sufficient controls and operational arrangements are in place for the issuer to deliver economic benefits and, where applicable, underlying securities to DR holders when required. More broadly, the relevant SEC
Read More
October 30, 2025
Recent events at a Thai listed company, where a proposal to remove the director was not successful, amid claims that a competitor was attempting to gain control of the company, illustrate how disputes over corporate control can unfold differently at the board level and shareholder level. At the board level, removing directors of a listed company mid-term to gain corporate control is not an easy task under Thai law, as it requires a higher threshold than appointing a new director, which typically only requires a simple majority vote in a listed company. At the shareholder level, Thailand’s tender offer and competition regimes add complexity where different shareholder groups act in concert to remove opposing board representatives or otherwise influence control. In this article, we will explore why the attempted removal of a director may fail, and how the tender offer regime may apply. Key Issues at a Glance Shareholder groups may seek to convene meetings to propose changes to board composition or company authority. Such proposals can be delayed or complicated by regulatory requirements and the need for additional disclosures. Regulatory authorities and minority shareholders may raise concerns when major shareholders coordinate to influence board control, especially if such actions could trigger tender offer or merger control obligations. Companies often respond by seeking further information on shareholder relationships and potential conflicts before proceeding. Why the Director Removal Failed Under Section 76 of the Public Limited Companies Act B.E. 2535 (as amended), the early removal of a director requires two conditions to be satisfied at the same meeting of shareholders: Headcount test: At least 75% of shareholders attending and entitled to vote must vote in favor. If multiple shareholders appoint the same person as proxy, each proxy is counted as a separate head for the purpose of the headcount test,
Read More
October 1, 2025
In September 2025, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused a company listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), including its current and former directors, of concealing material information in connection with its filing registration and draft prospectus. This recent enforcement action demonstrates the serious consequences of making false statements or appearing to conceal material information in IPO filings and ongoing disclosures. In addition to being subject to criminal penalties, such actions can impact the eligibility of directors and executives to serve and may cause lasting reputational damage. Key Legal Risks The Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (as amended) imposes strict liability for making false statements or concealing material information in IPO registration statements and draft prospectuses. In such cases, investors can claim for damages, and there are also criminal penalties, including imprisonment for up to five years and substantial fines, may apply to the company, its directors, and responsible officers. However, misstatements or omissions in IPO filings do not, by themselves, disqualify directors or executives from holding office, whether arising from an SEC accusation or even a final court judgment. In contrast, for ongoing disclosures after listing, such as financial statements, annual reports, and meeting notices, false or misleading statements or concealment of material information can result in not only criminal liability but also immediate disqualification of directors and executives. If the SEC accuses a listed company or its directors or executives of such misstatements or omissions, those directors or executives are immediately disqualified from their positions, even before a final court judgment. Director and Executive Qualifications Directors and executives must meet the SEC’s specified standards of trustworthiness, as set out in the relevant rules. The SEC clearly defines characteristics that are considered to demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness. For ongoing disclosures, being involved in
Read More